SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mary Cluney who wrote (100713)2/16/2005 9:27:42 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793706
 
The smog in California is even worse. What is happening in some of the other third world urban areas is even far worse. You don't need a degree in anything to tell you that something should be done - now - not even for our childrens sake but for many of the adults whose health is being damaged.

The subject we were discussing was global warming, not smog. We know enough about smog to do something about it. We already have done quite a bit about it. Would be much worse now had we not. I think we should fight smog because it is a known health risk and we know how to fix it. The same cannot be said for global warming.

Let's get back to global warming, shall we?

To say that perhaps it could be a good thing - a lot of positive things can come out of it - does not merit a serious response.

You are evading my question about what impact you are expecting from global warming. It is a serious question. If you cannot identify the product of global warming, how do you know it will be a bad thing? You cannot know.

With the available knowledge and tools that we have, this is the best that we can come up.

Yes, it is. The question remains, is the best that we can come up with solid enough to be actionable? To what end do we take action? And at what cost? At the very least we have to describe the objective before we move heaven and earth to to after it.


To obfuscate and discredit sincere people with political agenda is not helpful or wise in anyway.

I'm not the one trying to obfuscate. I'm trying to identify the intervening logical progression between recognition of human impact on climate and, say, Kyoto. It's your sincere people who are getting there on a leap of faith. How much credit does that deserve? I'll give points for caring, earnestness, and commitment. Leaps of faith get no points from me. Putting lipstick on the leap gets a negative score.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News